@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M. Jaichandren, J.@mdashThis writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to
the impugned assessment order passed by the second Respondent, in Assessment Number TNGST 6182347 relating to the year 2005-06, dated
17.03.2010, and quash the same and consequently direct the second Respondent to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner firm
and thereafter, to pass a fresh assessment order.
2. Mr. Pala Ramasamy, the learned Special Government Pleader takes notice
3. The main contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the for the Respondents. Petitioner is that the final assessment order for the
assessment year 2005-06 had been passed, by the second Respondent, without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner. It has
also been pointed out that the order passed by the second Respondent, on 17.03.2010, had been received by the Petitioner, on 24.04.2010.
4. However, Mr. Pala Ramasamy, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents had submitted, on
instructions, that summons had been sent to the Petitioner, by the second Respondent, on 19.01.2007 relating to the provisional assessment for the
assessment year 2005-2006. The Petitioner had sent a reply to the said notice, on 05.03.2007, requesting the second Respondent to grant one
month time to submit a detailed reply. Even though sufficient time had been granted, the Petitioner had not submitted the detailed reply. Thereafter,
a pre-assessment notice has been sent on 26.10.2007. On 31.12.2007, a revised pre-assessment notice had also been sent. Only thereafter, a
final order had been passed by the second Respondent, on 17.03.2010, which had been received by the Petitioner, on 24.04.2010.
5. In such circumstances, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to grant the relief, as prayed for in the present writ petition and to
accept the claim of the Petitioner that sufficient opportunity had not been given to the Petitioner, before the impugned order had been passed, by
the second Respondent. It is also seen that an appeal remedy is available to the Petitioner u/s 31A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act,
1959. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
